View Single Post
  #13  
Old 12-02-10, 01:49 AM
John Mulcahy's Avatar
John Mulcahy John Mulcahy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,291
Default

I too agree with Andy and Alan

There are several die variations of the 1913 pattern O/R badge. The main variations are in crown (width and arch angle) and scroll. One also finds minor differences in Maid and where the wings join the sound box.

The WM version (sealed pattern number 7330) was sealed in 1913 and I can find no reference of it being replaced until sealed pattern number 16420, (the WM St Edwards crown version) in 1954. I can find no reference of a re-sealing (of the other ranks forage cap badge) on the change of regimental title.

As to whether larger crowns are indicative of earlier (i.e. pre 1922 examples) I do not believe they are (at least not exclusively).

I have several examples of the 1913 pattern and the BB 1902 pattern. I do not want to give the fakers too much info by giving the exact measurements, but here is a summary of the ratio of the crown max width to badge max width.

In this table the smaller the ratio the bigger the crown is (in width), these crowns typically have a larger arch making them look bigger in height also. Hopefully it is clear (the tabbing seems to change from composing to posting).

1902 TC with loops 1.72:1
1902 TC Slider 1.73:1
1902 TC Slider different die to above 1.85:1

1913 TC Wide Crown arch, large crown, long scroll (hairpin slider) 1.64:1
1913 TC Wide Crown arch, flat squat type crown (hairpin slider) 1.82:1
1913 TC Flatter Crown, Visibly smaller ( same die as next one) 1.76:1
1913 TC Flatter Crown, slider J.R. Gaunt London (50’s mark) 1.76:1
TC Flatter Crown, slider marked FN B'HAM 1940’s 1.84:1
WW2 Plastic Economy Version sealed 1943. Plastic Fashions, 1.74:1

From this I conclude,
• small crown versions of the 1902 BB exist (smaller that the biggest
WM 1913 version I have seen) ,
• larger crowns versions of the 1913 pattern can be found into the
1940’s .

Not a definitive arguement I know but illustrative none the less.


John

Last edited by John Mulcahy; 12-02-10 at 01:56 AM. Reason: added comments
Reply With Quote